"Women have no wilderness in them, / They are provident instead, / Content in the tight, hot cell of their hearts / To eat dusty bread…/ They wait, when they should turn to journeys, / They stiffen, when they should bend. / They use against themselves that benevolence / To which no man is friend."― from "Women," by Louise Bogan

Even as Korea's birthrate declines precipitously, as in much of the developed world, there's a deeply held belief in the necessity of marriage.

I know as I am in my 30s and, mercifully, not from wrinkles, but rather from the content of my Facebook newsfeed and emails. Many high school and college friends, so many of them still young and beautiful, have decided to get married and have children.

The images of their offspring are heartening: the wide, wise gaze of cherubic baby faces eyeing the world as if it were new; the toddlers stumbling through their hurried and unsure gait across carpet in gated, middle-class enclaves. Graduations, proms, picnics, plays, and parties riddle my screen and I am, when not cynical, pleased. I whisper to myself: the human race will continue. They have propagated the species. But for the grace of God go I.

Understand; I love children. Children have a keen sense of justice and fairness adults seem to easily forget.

But teaching and babysitting other people's children is far different from dedicating a lifetime to one's progeny. It costs $250,000 to raise a child until 18, and much more if college is considered. The educational rigor in Korea adds a lot more money to that average.

I'm not anti-marriage, either. Loads of social science data tells us that children raised in dual-parent, stable households fare far better in life than those who do not. So, particularly if one wants to have children, marriage and/or a steady relationship are ideal parameters in which to have them.

My problem with marriage is this: people, particularly women, are socially-pressured, even obligated, to get married and have children. This notion is coupled with something else affecting both sexes (but women more): human completion, at least romantically, can never be achieved without a lifelong, monogamous relationship.

A little history: marriage, for most of human civilization, was a sexist, misogynist and androcentric contract between a man and a woman (or more often, women) to transfer property, wealth, and/or consolidate political power. Women were almost always part of this schema as mere chattel, and amongst the elite and royal, this was even more the case. Kings, and sometimes queens, had mistresses and lovers, and in the vast majority of Asian, African, Middle Eastern and Meso-American cultures, it was understood that kings would have many consorts and concubines, enshrined into custom, law, and faith.

The Abrahamic or Semitic religions, (monotheistic faiths tracing their origins to Abraham: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) and their holy books are full of patriarchs and kings with many, many women in their royal harem, so many they could populate a small college. (Most famous, of course, is the story of King Solomon and his 700 wives).

Succinctly, how we view marriage today ― as a monogamous relationship built on mutual trust, love and equality, is an ideal that's achievable, surely, and maybe even desirable, but is not the norm, nor traditional.

"Traditional" marriage ― one man, one woman, no extras ― is very new in human societies. A few centuries old, at best. Besides polygamy and incest between sisters and brothers (Egyptian dynasties), and/or first cousins and other closely related family members (the Habsburgs of Europe) was common in royalty and principalities throughout many countries.

The aforementioned sexism and commodification of female bodies, and all the attendant ills thereof, is one major reason why marriage and childbirth have declined, even as divorces and singlehood have increased. Women increasingly want no part of it.

As women accrue education, gainful employment and access to full citizenship (it was only in the 20th century that American women could vote, control their reproductive cycles, achieve gainful employment and easily get lawful divorces, for example), they find the prospect of marriage and children less appealing, particularly in countries where childcare, secondary and tertiary education are prohibitively expensive, and/or where paid maternal leave is non-existent or poorly funded. Korea, Japan and much of Europe are experiencing precipitous declines in marriage and birth partly for these reasons. America would be experiencing the same thing if it were not for immigration, legal and illegal.

Why marry? Being with the same person for 60 years sounds dreadful to me, but then I'm not the marrying kind.

If you want to get married, or already are, more power to you. Just don't fall for the ahistorical, trans-historical and verifiably false narrative of a nuclear, "Leave It to Beaver" traditional coupling spanning the course of human history. It's not so.

Deauwand Myers holds a master's degree in English literature and literary theory, and is an English professor outside Seoul. He can be reached at deauwand@hotmail.com.